Development support staff are rarely in the limelight, even within their own organizations. But Signe Swenson has had a whirlwind of a week. The former development associate at the MIT Media Lab helped inform New Yorker reporter Ronan Farrow’s exposé about the center’s financial ties with the late Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender.
In previous interviews, Swenson recalled her and her colleagues’ concern that young women who accompanied Epstein on a campus visit and looked like models may have been victims of trafficking. “We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they’re not there by choice, we could maybe help them,” she told NPR. Employees even checked the trash for any pleas for help scribbled on napkins and discarded. Among the lab’s staff, she told Farrow, “All of us women made it a point to be super nice to them.”
Swenson was in her mid-20s at the time and left the lab in 2016. Now director of marketing and operations at an education nonprofit, she spoke with me about what happened when she initially raised concerns to leaders and why she felt like she was one of the only people who could blow the whistle on Epstein’s relationship with the institution. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Tell me about how you got into fundraising.
I was an art major in undergrad at Boston University and worked in a museum. The arts-administration program also offers a fundraising certificate. It’s good for people with strong interpersonal skills so it felt within my skills and like something that would have helped me stretch. I thought it was interesting that you could explore a passion for a cause by working in fundraising.
How did you land at MIT? What were you doing in your role there?
I was a development associate and worked on the team that dealt with the ultra-high net-worth prospects. I was helping them build their principal-gift tracking reports and things that would go to leadership. So I really got to know every single prospect in the whole team’s portfolio — the ones we were actively looking at, the ones we hadn’t looked at, or the ones we disqualified.
I had a real look at how all of the systems of development work together.
You knew about Epstein’s relationship with the Media Lab even when you were interviewing for your role there. Peter Cohen, the director of development and strategy at the time, explained to you that the lab was working with Epstein and that it was seeking to do more with him but that his donations had to be kept secret. Did you express your concerns then?
I expressed that I was aware of Epstein’s conviction and that I thought working with him was a terrible idea. I remember learning that if I chose to take the job, this was not going to be my choice, or necessarily Peter’s. I did say that I guess it would be OK as long as I’m never in a room with Epstein. I sort of was drawing a line in that moment, but it’s interesting looking back. Clearly, I wanted the job very badly and did speak up, but it does feel as if I was just tested to see how confidential I could be. This was five years ago, and I was less confident than I should have been about my beliefs of what was unethical.
Did you have any kind of ethics training at MIT or when you took courses for the fundraising certificate in college? Did you feel like you were equipped to juggle these tricky questions?
In the BU fundraising certificate courses, they had a guest speaker discuss ethics to a certain degree. Her supervisor when she first started out had told her to wear a dress, wear heels, dress a certain way as an attempt to get her to be sort of a lure for potential donors. That felt very much like “lean in” advice where you’re not given the tools that you need to act. You’re just told, “Don’t stand for it; raise your voice.”
At MIT, it was sort of made known that we should try to be ethical within development, but it wasn’t completely defined — who we could go talk to, what the possible steps would be, what is actually crossing the line.
Did you feel like you could approach other fundraising leaders about your concerns?
I shared my opinion of what I thought about the relationship with my supervisor, as well as other people I was talking to, but I don’t know that anything was done with what I said. Looking back, they didn’t want to know. They didn’t want to see a reason to not pursue the relationship. It certainly colors your opinion of the people who seem to be OK with this.
Did this come up often? What conversations did you have with colleagues who were your peers?
I remember specifically the other woman and I discussing how this was so awful. It was an open secret in the central development office, this relationship with Epstein. Other women told their own supervisors. We said at every turn that he should not be a prospect of MIT, that this is asking for trouble.
As you were struggling with these questions, did you feel like your gender was a factor in how your feedback was received?
That is something I’ve talked about with the other women at my level many times — the discrepancy between the majority female staff at the support level and the primarily male staff at the leadership level. There are a lot of female fundraisers, but that doesn’t add up to a representational amount of female leadership.
It also felt like there wasn’t proper management training given to the managers. You get promoted because you have a very strong track record with donors, but I think there’s just a gap in management knowledge and training. I think that was reinforced by the fact that when I would see issues and raise them with my supervisors, it did fall on deaf ears.
Epstein was listed in the university’s central donor database as disqualified. What did that really mean?
It wasn’t uncommon. When I started, we had been looking at defining who was a potential MIT donor because they were starting a $5 billion campaign. So the disqualified status existed before, but we started using it heavily to indicate people who had nothing to do with MIT. They could also be marked as disqualified to say that a fundraiser had made an attempt to reach the prospect and this one isn’t worth pursuing. Epstein likely was disqualified by the research department because all that was in his file was a brief summary of his 2008 conviction and then a link to an article explaining it in detail. But that doesn’t necessarily stop anyone from taking that person’s money. It’s just a relationship management detail. He still gave anonymously through foundations.
There were definitely other controversial donors — because of how they got their wealth or comments they’ve made about science, other topics where you might think a place like MIT would draw a line. But if they had a relationship with MIT, it was even harder to draw a line.
Why did you decide to come forward now?
When Epstein was arrested, I felt like this was a great opportunity for the truth to come out. I felt sadly vindicated about what I had experienced and our suspicions at the time. Then when he committed suicide, I was heartbroken for the survivors thinking that the opportunity for answers was gone. And then I saw Ethan Zuckerman’s statement on his resignation. I remembered I could access my old email account. I did a simple search for “Epstein” and came up with 20 emails right off the bat. I realized I was sitting on the facts.
So you left the job in 2016 but still had access to your emails?
MIT cuts off email access, like every other employer, as soon as you’re gone. But the Media Lab has their own email accounts. They let people keep their email because a lot of students use it for professional contacts. I hadn’t accessed it for years, but I started freaking out that I had this information.
My head was spinning, and I realized that of all the people who know and of all the people who actually still have records, I would be the only person who could or would speak up.
Why would you be the only person?
I was probably the only support staff who had the full picture. Many people who worked at the supervisor level when I was there still work in development, though not at MIT, so their reputation in development would be important. I wasn’t sure if they were protecting themselves or MIT by not speaking out. From the time when I learned, and I assume others had learned, of his involvement with MIT, enough time had gone by for other people to step forward. And I couldn’t wait any longer.
How did you go about getting whistle-blower help or protections?
I had never spoken to a journalist or a lawyer in an official context. I reached out to Zuckerman who suggested I contact John Tye the founder of Whisteblower Aid. Within 48 hours, I was in contact with him, and five days after I was speaking with Ronan Farrow.
Were you worried about the personal repercussions of being a whistle-blower?
I still work in the nonprofit world, and I would hate for my current organization to suffer because I’ve put myself out there. But having left development work, I didn’t have the risks to my career.
I thought I might be viewed as a tattle and that I was sort of breaking the cardinal rule of development in revealing donor information. I thought there could be potential fallout if people thought that I was untrustworthy. But I’ve found that not to be the case.
When I started talking with John, I started feeling protected and safe.
How have other fundraisers responded to you since the story broke?
I’ve gotten maybe 50 messages from development professionals, largely complete strangers, just saying thank you for doing the right thing. Some of them saying they’ve seen similar things happen and tried to raise issues themselves. One of the first came within an hour of the article posting. That lifted a weight off of my shoulders immediately.
How do you think this scandal could have been avoided?
It’s a little difficult to say because at certain points MIT almost did say no to Epstein. There was certainly an opportunity near the beginning to have leadership or others step in and also acknowledge what us support staff were saying, that this isn’t a good idea, this is very risky. But when large amounts of money were essentially credited to Epstein, his influence at MIT became stronger. Had he not been arrested, it’s hard to imagine at what point they could have drawn a line.
It’s because he got so involved without the institute publicly saying to Epstein, we’re cutting off your involvement. I don’t know that he would’ve stopped, and I don’t know that they would’ve had to have called attention to it.
What advice do you have for other fundraisers, who might be uncomfortable with the ethics of some of the choices being made by leadership?
First, trust your gut. Try to look at the facts. Evaluate what you know. In terms of getting to the point where you have to do something, raise issues with your supervisor, but if you think people aren’t listening, don’t be afraid to consult someone like Whistleblower Aid.
When I was looking at this information over that weekend in my home, I kept saying over and over, “Am I crazy?” It just seemed crazy that I had facts about this person. We are trusted with a lot of private information, and it can feel like you’re stuck in a situation you never asked to be involved in.
I was also feeling very guilty by association. I helped the development activity around Epstein. I think other support staff need to realize that and don’t let that stop you from coming forward. Any guilt you might feel would be replaced with relief and knowing you brought the information forward to be evaluated.
We keep secrets a lot in development. And some secrets are just not worth keeping.
Eden Stiffman reports on nonprofit trends and fundraising for the Chronicle. She also writes a popular weekly fundraising newsletter with news, features, and trends. Email Eden or follow her on Twitter.
